Reeves v. Davis
| Decision Date | 31 January 1879 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | J. W. REEVES v. H. DAVIS, Adm'r. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
CIVIL ACTION on a former judgment tried at Fall Term, 1878, of MADISON Superior Court, before Avery, J.
The facts appear in the opinion. Judgment for the plaintiff. Appeal by defendant.
Mr. M. E. Carter, for plaintiff .
Messrs. T. F. Davidson and J. L. Henry, for defendant .
This action was commenced in a justice's court on the judgment of a justice, and from his court there was an appeal by the defendant to the superior court of Madison county and thence to this court.
On the trial in the superior court the original judgment for the recovery of which the action was brought was offered in evidence, and when proof was being offered by one Creaseman, a justice of the peace, that he gave the judgment and the same was drawn up and signed by him or under his dictation, it was objected by the defendant that the judgment of a justice's court was not provable by law otherwise than by a duly certified transcript of the record from the justice's court, which objection was overruled and the defendant excepted.
The court of a justice of the peace is an inferior court of limited jurisdiction, and although he is required to keep a docket and enter his proceedings therein, it is not under our present system, and was not under our former system, a court of record. Ledbetter v. Osborne, 66 N. C., 379; Hamilton v. Wright, 4 Hawks, 283; Carroll v, McGee, 3 Ire. 13. Not being a court of record the rules of evidence established in relation to the authentication and proof of the judgments of courts of record are not applicable to it, and there being no legislative provision as to how their judgments are to be proved, there can be and is no better way than that which has obtained heretofore in the practice of our courts. The rule has been for many years to admit the judgments of justices' courts in evidence on proof of their handwriting, of their being in office at the time, and of the rendition of the same within their counties, and thereupon the same conclusiveness of effect was attributed to them as to the judgments of courts of record shown forth by transcript under the seal of the court. Hamilton v. Wright, and Carroll v. McGee, supra.
We see no reason to depart from the rule on this subject, which has been so long observed in our courts, and in consistency therewith, we hold there was no error in the court below in overruling the objection of the defendant.
From the case made and sent up for our consideration it appears that the justice of the peace, whose judgment is the subject matter of this action, did not himself write out the judgment and subscribe his name with his own hand, but had the same done by another at his dictation. And it is further agreed by the parties to the appeal that the judgment of the justice was not rendered at the sitting when the case was heard, but he reserved his judgment until he could deliberate and seek information. Afterwards in the absence of the parties he entered his judgment as aforesaid and gave notice thereof to the parties. Upon these facts it is assigned for error in this court; 1st. that the judgment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Griffis
... ... it has been held that its proceedings may be proved by parol ... State v. Green, 100 N.C. 419, 5 S.E. 422; Reeves ... v. Davis, 80 N.C. 209. In the exercise of supervisory ... power over an inferior court where proceedings are only quasi ... records, ... ...
-
State v. Hendricks
... ... made at the date mentioned in the regular course of the ... business conducted by the hotel. Reeves v. Davis, 80 ... N.C. 209; Mott v ... ...
-
Patterson v. Freeman
...a justice is not such a record as entitles it to be introduced without proof of the handwriting of the justice who rendered it. Reeves v. Davis, 80 N. C. 209. It seems, however, that his honor was of the opinion that the justice did not have jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the action.......
-
State v. Green
...rules of evidence established for the proof and authentication of the proceedings of courts of record do not apply to such courts. Reeves v. Davis, 80 N.C. 209. 2. second exception is that the alleged fact testified to was immaterial, because it could be of no avail, as the deed passed the ......